Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 2113263" data-attributes="member: 2205">Essentially.  That's the primary virtue of any word.I can play that game too; I think your position is equally, if not quite demonstrably, more absurd.  You're making a case that context "bleeds" from one use to another of the same word.  I'm saying that not only do I not buy that, but that fluff does not have any inherent derogatory connotations, as you describe.Perhaps it does if you are really into literature, I suppose, but that's a small enough outlier that I think it can be comfortably ignored.Only if you have an "extra special" definition of the word that is not commonly used, but you are holding up as the way it should.  Your usage of the word physics in every homebrew discusson, for instance, is problematic, but that's only because you insist on using the word in an unconventional (and arguably incorrect) way, not a problem inherent in the word itself.I completely disregard the idea that a word that has a common usage is problematic just because you don't like it, and you want a more specific term.  You're always free to use a more specific term, but as shorthand, the common usage words are incredibly convenient.Nothing's holding you back, here.  If you have better terms, start using them, and use them every chance you get.  If they truly are better, they'll catch on.You have an odd idea of what "still standing" means.  You yourself state that the thread is self-selecting so the data is essentially useless for purposes of that point.  I agreed and said that I never tried to make that point, I was making a completely unrelated one that you haven't really addressed.  And now you say that based on the data in this thread, your point still stands?I don't quite know how to take this, as your position has been all along that fluff was a categorically derogatory term, and now you're saying that you never claimed that everyone understands fluff as categorically derogatory?  If I'm making a strawman, that's only because your argument is a moving target -- it wasn't a strawman when I stated it.Well, it would be.  My position is that the minority isn't significant, so it's a moot point.  I've seen crunch and fluff talked about incessantly for years on half a dozen rpg message boards, and with the exception of these kinds of threads which self-select for those with a gripe, nobody has ever had a problem with the terms.  That, naturally, leads me to believe that the terms are actually quite useful and satisfactory for discussion for almost everyone involved, and only those with a chip on their shoulder for one reason or another has a problem with it.  Since that's true of pretty much any term in the English (or any other language) I don't really agree that there's any need to improve the situation.</blockquote>

Verification